Skip to main content

Table 5 The quality of RDT services assess through mystery clients by the study arms

From: Improving uptake and use of malaria rapid diagnostic tests in the context of artemisinin drug resistance containment in eastern Myanmar: an evaluation of incentive schemes among informal private healthcare providers

Indicators Arm 1 Arm 2 Arm 3 Arm 1 vs. Arm 2 Chi2, p-value Arm 1 vs. Arm 3 Chi2, p-value Arm 2 vs. Arm 3 Chi2, p-value
N (%) (n = 63) N (%) (n = 55) N (%) (n = 53)
Proposed to conduct RDT at their own facilities (without prompting) 32 (50.8) 35 (63.6) 31 (58.5) 0.157 0.405 0.586
Proposed to conduct RDT at other facilities 7 (11.1) 7 (12.7) 0 (0.0) 0.789 0.005 0.005
Providers proposed and performed all 5 steps of RDT unprompted 25 (39.7) 26 (47.3) 18 (34.0) 0.519 0.658 0.226
Providers who agreed to perform RDT after prompting 3 (4.8) 1 (1.8%) 14 (26.4) 0.710 0.003 0.001
Total providers who performed RDT at their facilities (with and without prompting) 35 (55.6) 36 (65.5) 45 (84.9) 0.269 0.000 0.016
Providers performed RDT, read the result correctly and treat properly (with and without prompting) 27 (42.9) 28 (50.9) 39 (73.6) 0.384 0.000 0.012
The percentages below this row were calculated among those who performed RDT with or without prompting
Providers who used antiseptic while performing RDT 35 (100.0) 34 (94.4) 41 (91.1) 0.071 0.023 0.508
Providers who read result correctly 30 (85.7) 35 (97.2) 44 (97.8) 0.020 0.013 0.842
Providers who showed results to client 30 (85.7) 34 (94.4) 35 (77.8) 0.107 0.273 0.011
Providers who gave correct treatment 28 (80.0) 30 (83.3) 39 (86.7) 0.643 0.329 0.620